ianstone
05-10-2010, 08:05 AM
US cannot afford another Afghanistan or Iraq, warns Defence Secretary
Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, has said military spending must be cut by up to $15 billion a year and that the US cannot afford to enter into another Afghanistan or Iraq.
Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 6:11PM BST 09 May 2010
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01618/Robert-Gates_1618690c.jpg United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates Photo:
Mr Gates said that America would be forced to take tight budgets into consideration before launching any military action against Iran.
His plans would see cuts in spending on its bureaucracy and on equipment designed for a repeat of the Second World War rather than the smaller wars of the 21st century.
Related Articles
Barack Obama warns team over Karzai visit (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7704714/Barack-Obama-warns-team-over-Karzai-visit.html)
Robert Gates calls for cuts to major weapons programmes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5116810/Robert-Gates-calls-for-cuts-to-major-weapons-programmes.html)
America 'to slash military spending' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5110462/US-to-slash-military-spending.html)
New Royal Navy aircraft carriers delayed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3708337/New-Royal-Navy-aircraft-carriers-delayed.html)
Team Obama can't afford a fly in the ointment (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3687108/Team-Obama-cant-afford-a-fly-in-the-ointment.html)
Defence procurement "harming" military's operational ability (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6074907/Defence-procurement-harming-militarys-operational-ability.html)
However, he said he would protect the military's ability to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He said that defence spending had doubled since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and that the severe recession guaranteed that "the gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time".
In a speech at the Eisenhower Presidential Library to mark the 65th anniversary of the German surrender, he said: "I do think that as we look to the future, particularly for the next couple of years or so while we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the Congress and the president would look long and hard at another military operation that would cost us $100 billion a year.
"If there's a realy threat out there, the president and Congress will spend whatever it takes to protect the nation. But in situations where there are real choices, I think this would be a factor."
"The Defence Department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it is organized, staffed and operated - indeed, every aspect of how it does business."
The challenges facing the Pentagon in some ways mirror those confronting Britain as it seeks to adequately fund the military in a recession.
According to Mr Gates and many of his colleagues, the US military has more fat to cut, particularly from its officialdom and top brass. US defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product in recent years has been about 4.5 per cent, compared to 2.5 per cent in Britain.
He said that the Pentagon had habitually overstated what warships, aircraft and vehicles it needed in the post-Cold War world.
"Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?" he asked.
While the US Navy had shrunk since the end of the Cold War, its battle fleet was still larger than the next 13 navies combined. At $535 billion, excluding $136 billion spent on the two wars, US military spending in 2010 was more than the rest of the world's combined.
Mr Gates, promising to see his changes through, said slicing two or three per cent off the budget would guarantee the ability to modernize the Pentagon's fighting forces.
His for "root-and-branch" changes and his questioning of whether the current number of headquarters, flag-officers and commands were necessary could trigger a struggle with groups in the Pentagon that have major clout in Congress.
Congressman with districts where production jobs may be lost have already objected to his existing plans for cuts and are likely to continue battling further demands for belt-tightening.
Jacques Gansler, who served as the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer from 1997 until 2001, said he would struggle to convince those members would he said would say: "'We all want to make savings but not in my district".'
Mr Gates has already managed to persuade Congress to stop production of the Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter at 187 aircraft, and is embroiled in a struggle to drop the production of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets.
He has eased out the Navy's DDG-1000 stealth destroyer, ending the programme with its third ship, and instead restarted the older but still quite capable DDG-51.
In his speech the defence secretary took aim at the multiple layers of approval required for service requests.
"Consider that a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan - or for any other unit - has to go through no fewer than five four-star headquarters in order to be processed, validated, and eventually dealt with," he said.
He continued: "Two decades after the end of the Cold War led to steep cuts in US forces in Europe, our military still has more than 40 generals, admirals, or civilian equivalents based on the continent. Yet we scold our allies over the bloat in Nato headquarters."
Is he right, tell me why please ?
Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, has said military spending must be cut by up to $15 billion a year and that the US cannot afford to enter into another Afghanistan or Iraq.
Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 6:11PM BST 09 May 2010
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01618/Robert-Gates_1618690c.jpg United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates Photo:
Mr Gates said that America would be forced to take tight budgets into consideration before launching any military action against Iran.
His plans would see cuts in spending on its bureaucracy and on equipment designed for a repeat of the Second World War rather than the smaller wars of the 21st century.
Related Articles
Barack Obama warns team over Karzai visit (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7704714/Barack-Obama-warns-team-over-Karzai-visit.html)
Robert Gates calls for cuts to major weapons programmes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5116810/Robert-Gates-calls-for-cuts-to-major-weapons-programmes.html)
America 'to slash military spending' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5110462/US-to-slash-military-spending.html)
New Royal Navy aircraft carriers delayed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3708337/New-Royal-Navy-aircraft-carriers-delayed.html)
Team Obama can't afford a fly in the ointment (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3687108/Team-Obama-cant-afford-a-fly-in-the-ointment.html)
Defence procurement "harming" military's operational ability (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6074907/Defence-procurement-harming-militarys-operational-ability.html)
However, he said he would protect the military's ability to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He said that defence spending had doubled since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and that the severe recession guaranteed that "the gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time".
In a speech at the Eisenhower Presidential Library to mark the 65th anniversary of the German surrender, he said: "I do think that as we look to the future, particularly for the next couple of years or so while we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the Congress and the president would look long and hard at another military operation that would cost us $100 billion a year.
"If there's a realy threat out there, the president and Congress will spend whatever it takes to protect the nation. But in situations where there are real choices, I think this would be a factor."
"The Defence Department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it is organized, staffed and operated - indeed, every aspect of how it does business."
The challenges facing the Pentagon in some ways mirror those confronting Britain as it seeks to adequately fund the military in a recession.
According to Mr Gates and many of his colleagues, the US military has more fat to cut, particularly from its officialdom and top brass. US defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product in recent years has been about 4.5 per cent, compared to 2.5 per cent in Britain.
He said that the Pentagon had habitually overstated what warships, aircraft and vehicles it needed in the post-Cold War world.
"Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?" he asked.
While the US Navy had shrunk since the end of the Cold War, its battle fleet was still larger than the next 13 navies combined. At $535 billion, excluding $136 billion spent on the two wars, US military spending in 2010 was more than the rest of the world's combined.
Mr Gates, promising to see his changes through, said slicing two or three per cent off the budget would guarantee the ability to modernize the Pentagon's fighting forces.
His for "root-and-branch" changes and his questioning of whether the current number of headquarters, flag-officers and commands were necessary could trigger a struggle with groups in the Pentagon that have major clout in Congress.
Congressman with districts where production jobs may be lost have already objected to his existing plans for cuts and are likely to continue battling further demands for belt-tightening.
Jacques Gansler, who served as the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer from 1997 until 2001, said he would struggle to convince those members would he said would say: "'We all want to make savings but not in my district".'
Mr Gates has already managed to persuade Congress to stop production of the Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter at 187 aircraft, and is embroiled in a struggle to drop the production of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets.
He has eased out the Navy's DDG-1000 stealth destroyer, ending the programme with its third ship, and instead restarted the older but still quite capable DDG-51.
In his speech the defence secretary took aim at the multiple layers of approval required for service requests.
"Consider that a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan - or for any other unit - has to go through no fewer than five four-star headquarters in order to be processed, validated, and eventually dealt with," he said.
He continued: "Two decades after the end of the Cold War led to steep cuts in US forces in Europe, our military still has more than 40 generals, admirals, or civilian equivalents based on the continent. Yet we scold our allies over the bloat in Nato headquarters."
Is he right, tell me why please ?